Iraq is a trial run
Chomsky interviewed by
Frontline
VK Ramachandran
Frontline India
April 02, 2003
Noam Chomsky , University
Professor at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology,
founder of the modern
science of linguistics
and political activist,
is a powerhouse of anti-imperialist
activism in the United
States today. On March
21, a crowded and typical
- and uniquely Chomskyan
- day of political protest
and scientific academic
research, he spoke from
his office for half an
hour to V. K. Ramachandran
on the current attack
on Iraq.
V.
K. Ramachandran:
Does the present
aggression on Iraq represent
a continuation of United
States' international
policy in recent years
or a qualitatively new
stage in that policy?
Noam
Chomsky:
It represents a significantly
new phase. It is not without
precedent, but significantly
new nevertheless.
This should be seen as
a trial run. Iraq is seen
as an extremely easy and
totally defenceless target.
It is assumed, probably
correctly, that the society
will collapse, that the
soldiers will go in and
that the U.S. will be
in control, and will establish
the regime of its choice
and military bases. They
will then go on to the
harder cases that will
follow. The next case
could be the Andean region,
it could be Iran, it could
be others.
The trial run is to try
and establish what the
U.S. calls a "new
norm" in international
relations. The new norm
is "preventive war"
(notice that new norms
are established only by
the United States). So,
for example, when India
invaded East Pakistan
to terminate horrendous
massacres, it did not
establish a new norm of
humanitarian intervention,
because India is the wrong
country, and besides,
the U.S. was strenuously
opposed to that action.
This is not pre-emptive
war; there is a crucial
difference. Pre-emptive
war has a meaning, it
means that, for example,
if planes are flying across
the Atlantic to bomb the
United States, the United
States is permitted to
shoot them down even before
they bomb and may be permitted
to attack the air bases
from which they came.
Pre-emptive war is a response
to ongoing or imminent
attack.
The doctrine of preventive
war is totally different;
it holds that the United
States - alone, since
nobody else has this right
- has the right to attack
any country that it claims
to be a potential challenge
to it. So if the United
States claims, on whatever
grounds, that someone
may sometime threaten
it, then it can attack
them.
The doctrine of preventive
war was announced explicitly
in the National Strategy
Report last September.
It sent shudders around
the world, including through
the U.S. establishment,
where, I might say, opposition
to the war is unusually
high. The National Strategy
Report said, in effect,
that the U.S. will rule
the world by force, which
is the dimension - the
only dimension - in which
it is supreme. Furthermore,
it will do so for the
indefinite future, because
if any potential challenge
arises to U.S. domination,
the U.S. will destroy
it before it becomes a
challenge.
This is the first exercise
of that doctrine. If it
succeeds on these terms,
as it presumably will,
because the target is
so defenceless, then international
lawyers and Western intellectuals
and others will begin
to talk about a new norm
in international affairs.
It is important to establish
such a norm if you expect
to rule the world by force
for the foreseeable future.
This is not without precedent,
but it is extremely unusual.
I shall mention one precedent,
just to show how narrow
the spectrum is. In 1963,
Dean Acheson, who was
a much respected elder
statesman and senior Adviser
of the Kennedy Administration,
gave an important talk
to the American Society
of International Law,
in which he justified
the U. S. attacks against
Cuba. The attack by the
Kennedy Administration
on Cuba was large-scale
international terrorism
and economic warfare.
The timing was interesting
- it was right after the
Missile Crisis, when the
world was very close to
a terminal nuclear war.
In his speech, Acheson
said that "no legal
issue arises when the
United States responds
to challenges to its position,
prestige or authority",
or words approximating
that.
That is also a statement
of the Bush doctrine.
Although Acheson was an
important figure, what
he said had not been official
government policy in the
post-War period. It now
stands as official policy
and this is the first
illustration of it. It
is intended to provide
a precedent for the future.
Such "norms"
are established only when
a Western power does something,
not when others do. That
is part of the deep racism
of Western culture, going
back through centuries
of imperialism and so
deep that it is unconscious.
So I think this war is
an important new step,
and is intended to be.
Ramachandran:
Is it also a new
phase in that the U. S.
has not been able to carry
others with it?
Noam
Chomsky:
That is not new. In the
case of the Vietnam War,
for example, the United
States did not even try
to get international support.
Nevertheless, you are
right in that this is
unusual. This is a case
in which the United States
was compelled for political
reasons to try to force
the world to accept its
position and was not able
to, which is quite unusual.
Usually, the world succumbs.
Ramachandran:
So does it represent
a "failure of diplomacy"
or a redefinition of diplomacy
itself?
Noam
Chomsky:
I wouldn't call it diplomacy
at all - it's a failure
of coercion.
Compare it with the first
Gulf War. In the first
Gulf War, the U.S. coerced
the Security Council into
accepting its position,
although much of the world
opposed it. NATO went
along, and the one country
in the Security Council
that did not - Yemen -
was immediately and severely
punished.
In any legal system that
you take seriously, coerced
judgments are considered
invalid, but in the international
affairs conducted by the
powerful, coerced judgments
are fine - they are called
diplomacy.
What is interesting about
this case is that the
coercion did not work.
There were countries -
in fact, most of them
- who stubbornly maintained
the position of the vast
majority of their populations.
The most dramatic case
is Turkey. Turkey is a
vulnerable country, vulnerable
to U.S. punishment and
inducements. Nevertheless,
the new government, I
think to everyone's surprise,
did maintain the position
of about 90 per cent of
its population. Turkey
is bitterly condemned
for that here, just as
France and Germany are
bitterly condemned because
they took the position
of the overwhelming majority
of their populations.
The countries that are
praised are countries
like Italy and Spain,
whose leaders agreed to
follow orders from Washington
over the opposition of
maybe 90 per cent of their
populations.
That is another new step.
I cannot think of another
case where hatred and
contempt for democracy
have so openly been proclaimed,
not just by the government,
but also by liberal commentators
and others. There is now
a whole literature trying
to explain why France,
Germany, the so-called
"old Europe",
and Turkey and others
are trying to undermine
the United States. It
is inconceivable to the
pundits that they are
doing so because they
take democracy seriously
and they think that when
the overwhelming majority
of a population has an
opinion, a government
ought to follow it.
That is real contempt
for democracy, just as
what has happened at the
United Nations is total
contempt for the international
system. In fact there
are now calls - from The
Wall Street Journal ,people
in Government and others
- to disband the United
Nations.
Fear of the United States
around the world is extraordinary.
It is so extreme that
it is even being discussed
in the mainstream media.
The cover story of the
upcoming issue of Newsweek
is about why the world
is so afraid of the United
States. The Post had a
cover story about this
a few weeks ago.
Of course this is considered
to be the world's fault,
that there is something
wrong with the world with
which we have to deal
somehow, but also something
that has to be recognised.
Ramachandran:
The idea that Iraq
represents any kind of
clear and present danger
is, of course, without
any substance at all.
Noam
Chomsky:
Nobody pays any attention
to that accusation, except,
interestingly, the population
of the United States.
In the last few months,
there has been a spectacular
achievement of government-media
propaganda, very visible
in the polls. The international
polls show that support
for the war is higher
in the United States than
in other countries. That
is, however, quite misleading,
because if you look a
little closer, you find
that the United States
is also different in another
respect from the rest
of the world. Since September
2002, the United States
is the only country in
the world where 60 per
cent of the population
believes that Iraq is
an imminent threat - something
that people do not believe
even in Kuwait or Iran.
Furthermore, about 50
per cent of the population
now believes that Iraq
was responsible for the
attack on the World Trade
Centre. This has happened
since September 2002.
In fact, after the September
11 attack, the figure
was about 3 per cent.
Government-media propaganda
has managed to raise that
to about 50 per cent.
Now if people genuinely
believe that Iraq has
carried out major terrorist
attacks against the United
States and is planning
to do so again, well,
in that case people will
support the war.
This has happened, as
I said, after September
2002. September 2002 is
when the government-media
campaign began and also
when the mid-term election
campaign began. The Bush
Administration would have
been smashed in the election
if social and economic
issues had been in the
forefront, but it managed
to suppress those issues
in favour of security
issues - and people huddle
under the umbrella of
power.
This is exactly the way
the country was run in
the 1980s. Remember that
these are almost the same
people as in the Reagan
and the senior Bush Administrations.
Right through the 1980s
they carried out domestic
policies that were harmful
to the population and
which, as we know from
extensive polls, the people
opposed. But they managed
to maintain control by
frightening the people.
So the Nicaraguan Army
was two days' march from
Texas and about to conquer
the United States, and
the airbase in Granada
was one from which the
Russians would bomb us.
It was one thing after
another, every year, every
one of them ludicrous.
The Reagan Administration
actually declared a national
Emergency in 1985 because
of the threat to the security
of the United States posed
by the Government of Nicaragua.
If somebody were watching
this from Mars, they would
not know whether to laugh
or to cry.
They are doing exactly
the same thing now, and
will probably do something
similar for the presidential
campaign. There will have
to be a new dragon to
slay, because if the Administration
lets domestic issues prevail,
it is in deep trouble.
Ramachandran:
You have written
that this war of aggression
has dangerous consequences
with respect to international
terrorism and the threat
of nuclear war.
Noam
Chomsky:
I cannot claim any originality
for that opinion. I am
just quoting the CIA and
other intelligence agencies
and virtually every specialist
in international affairs
and terrorism. Foreign
Affairs, Foreign Policy
, the study by the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences,
and the high-level Hart-Rudman
Commission on terrorist
threats to the United
States all agree that
it is likely to increase
terrorism and the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction.
The reason is simple:
partly for revenge, but
partly just for self-defence.
There is no other way
to protect oneself from
U.S. attack. In fact,
the United States is making
the point very clearly,
and is teaching the world
an extremely ugly lesson.
Compare North Korea and
Iraq. Iraq is defenceless
and weak; in fact, the
weakest regime in the
region. While there is
a horrible monster running
it, it does not pose a
threat to anyone else.
North Korea, on the other
hand, does pose a threat.
North Korea, however,
is not attacked for a
very simple reason: it
has a deterrent. It has
a massed artillery aimed
at Seoul, and if the United
States attacks it, it
can wipe out a large part
of South Korea.
So the United States
is telling the countries
of the world: if you are
defenceless, we are going
to attack you when we
want, but if you have
a deterrent, we will back
off, because we only attack
defenceless targets. In
other words, it is telling
countries that they had
better develop a terrorist
network and weapons of
mass destruction or some
other credible deterrent;
if not, they are vulnerable
to "preventive war".
For that reason alone,
this war is likely to
lead to the proliferation
of both terrorism and
weapons of mass destruction.
Ramachandran:
How do you think
the U.S. will manage the
human - and humanitarian
- consequences of the
war?
Noam
Chomsky:
No one knows, of course.
That is why honest and
decent people do not resort
to violence - because
one simply does not know.
The aid agencies and
medical groups that work
in Iraq have pointed out
that the consequences
can be very severe. Everyone
hopes not, but it could
affect up to millions
of people. To undertake
violence when there is
even such a possibility
is criminal.
There is already - that
is, even before the war
- a humanitarian catastrophe.
By conservative estimates,
ten years of sanctions
have killed hundreds of
thousands of people. If
there were any honesty,
the U.S. would pay reparations
just for the sanctions.
The situation is similar
to the bombing of Afghanistan,
of which you and I spoke
when the bombing there
was in its early stages.
It was obvious the United
States was never going
to investigate the consequences.
Ramachandran:
Or invest the kind
of money that was needed.
Noam
Chomsky:Oh
no. First, the question
is not asked, so no one
has an idea of what the
consequences of the bombing
were for most of the country.
Then almost nothing comes
in. Finally, it is out
of the news, and no one
remembers it any more.
In Iraq, the United States
will make a show of humanitarian
reconstruction and will
put in a regime that it
will call democratic,
which means that it follows
Washington's orders. Then
it will forget about what
happens later, and will
go on to the next one.
Ramachandran:
How have the media lived
up to their propaganda-model
reputation this time?
Noam
Chomsky:
Right now it is cheerleading
for the home team. Look
at CNN, which is disgusting
- and it is the same everywhere.
That is to be expected
in wartime; the media
are worshipful of power.
More interesting is what
happened in the build-up
to war. The fact that
government-media propaganda
was able to convince the
people that Iraq is an
imminent threat and that
Iraq was responsible for
September 11 is a spectacular
achievement and, as I
said, was accomplished
in about four months.
If you ask people in the
media about this, they
will say, "Well,
we never said that,"
and it is true, they did
not. There was never a
statement that Iraq is
going to invade the United
States or that it carried
out the World Trade Centre
attack. It was just insinuated,
hint after hint, until
they finally got people
to believe it.
Ramachandran:
Look at the resistance,
though. Despite the propaganda,
despite the denigration
of the United Nations,
they haven't quite carried
the day.
Noam
Chomsky:
You never know. The United
Nations is in a very hazardous
position.
The United States might
move to dismantle it.
I don't really expect
that, but at least to
diminish it, because when
it isn't following orders,
of what use is it?
Ramachandran:
Noam, you have seen movements
of resistance to imperialism
over a long period - Vietnam,
Central America, Gulf
War I. What are your impressions
of the character, sweep
and depth of the present
resistance to U.S. aggression?
We take great heart in
the extraordinary mobilisations
all over the world.
Noam
Chomsky:
Oh, that is correct; there
is just nothing like it.
Opposition throughout
the world is enormous
and unprecedented, and
the same is true of the
United States. Yesterday,
for example, I was in
demonstrations in downtown
Boston, right around the
Boston Common. It is not
the first time I have
been there. The first
time I participated in
a demonstration there
at which I was to speak
was in October 1965. That
was four years after the
United States had started
bombing South Vietnam.
Half of South Vietnam
had been destroyed and
the war had been extended
to North Vietnam. We could
not have a demonstration
because it was physically
attacked, mostly by students,
with the support of the
liberal press and radio,
who denounced these people
who were daring to protest
against an American war.
On this occasion, however,
there was a massive protest
before the war was launched
officially and once again
on the day it was launched
- with no counter-demonstrators.
That is a radical difference.
And if it were not for
the fear factor that I
mentioned, there would
be much more opposition.
The government knows
that it cannot carry out
long-term aggression and
destruction as in Vietnam
because the population
will not tolerate it.
There is only one way
to fight a war now. First
of all, pick a much weaker
enemy, one that is defenceless.
Then build it up in the
propaganda system as either
about to commit aggression
or as an imminent threat.
Next, you need a lightning
victory. An important
leaked document of the
first Bush Administration
in 1989 described how
the U.S. would have to
fight war. It said that
the U.S. had to fight
much weaker enemies, and
that victory must be rapid
and decisive, as public
support will quickly erode.
It is no longer like the
1960s, when a war could
be fought for years with
no opposition at all.
In many ways, the activism
of the 1960s and subsequent
years has simply made
a lot of the world, including
this country, much more
civilised in many domains.
|